Pretend for a moment that it's 1976 and TSR has just released the OGL. Your name is George Lucas, and you've come up with some really cool things like wookies, light sabers, Darth Vader, and the Death Star.
PI lets publishers protect parts of their work that they don't want just anyone doing things with. Most of the time, a normal rules supplement doesn't have anything worth protecting. There are rare moments in time, though, where you really want to keep certain things to yourself... Good Gaming! Jim Butler, President Bastion Press, Inc. http://www.bastionpress.com "The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it. - P.J. O'Rourke " > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Gary > Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 9:36 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Ogf-l] Worthless OGC > > > > > Hi all, > > Just a question about why this seems to be a common tactic > used by most publishers. > > I've bought several add-ons/adventures for DnD that include > OGC, and also add their own OGC in the process. This is great > I thought. However my gripe is that a number of people seem > to do the following > > Name: Gary's new monster > Stat block: .... > Description .... > > Then release everything as OGC but PI the name. > > Now that is in my mind useless. If I wished to reuse that > monster I would need to simply give it a new name. So I could > still reuse all their work just not with that name. > > How does doing that benefit the original author? Wouldn't > they be better saying that the name is OGC, and everything > else is PI (unless of cause the stat block is derivative and > has to be OGC). > > That way when I decide to reuse their contents, I could say > in my adventure or whatever, the players open the door to > discover five Gary's new monsters. Which if the players > needed to find specific details they would have to buy the > "New monsters and stuff" book. > > Wouldn't this latter method be more in line with the way OGC > was meant to help publishers. Just like the way it will help > WotC by allowing people to reuse things but state requires > players handbook. > > I just don't see how the first method benefits the original > publisher in selling more copies. The only benefit of the > first method is providing a new type of monster, which would > have a different name in every single add on adventure it was used in. > > Anyhow, just a general gripe, I may be wrong their may be > some real benefit to the publishers using the first, but I'd > think the 2nd method would be more beneficial. > > Gary. > > _______________________________________________ > Ogf-l mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/l> istinfo/ogf-l > > _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
